Force always has a direction associated with it, it is a vector. Multiply a vector by -1 and witness the vector changing direction!
The absolute value (as in sqrt(x²+y²+z²)) can never be negative (as long as we're not talking about imaginary numbers). But then you're talking about the absolute value of a force. Not the force itself, which is a vector.
Vain
The absolute value (as in sqrt(x²+y²+z²)) can never be negative (as long as we're not talking about imaginary numbers). But then you're talking about the absolute value of a force. Not the force itself, which is a vector.
Vain
Last edited by Vain, .
1. Penalties are for events. That means over the complete day you gather all warnings and penalties.
2. Don't spoiler!
Vain
2. Don't spoiler!
Vain
If you have a hard time imagining projected complex geometry start out layer-wise.
First the box, then the geometry you will propably get right, then easy approximizations of the complex geometry. They're propapably wrong, so draw the better version of them right over the old lines. Do that until you are happy with the result and then take the pen you want to draw the result in and follow the lines you liked.
All pictures are created in steps. No one has a 3d-renderer in his head and a plotter for a hand. Don't be afraid to draw the wrong lines, as long as you draw them in such a way that they aren't noticable on the finished image.
The better you get the closer your first lines will get to a good shape.
Also, when you begin something you will propably fail at, start out with small versions of the object and increase the size until you reach what you wanted. Small objects don't need much detail and you allow yourself to concentrate on those lines that are important. Step by step you increase the number of details. That makes the process of imagining all that detailed geometry with it's shadows and reflections easier.
* That's just the strategy I use. I don't claim that it's any good.
Vain
First the box, then the geometry you will propably get right, then easy approximizations of the complex geometry. They're propapably wrong, so draw the better version of them right over the old lines. Do that until you are happy with the result and then take the pen you want to draw the result in and follow the lines you liked.
All pictures are created in steps. No one has a 3d-renderer in his head and a plotter for a hand. Don't be afraid to draw the wrong lines, as long as you draw them in such a way that they aren't noticable on the finished image.
The better you get the closer your first lines will get to a good shape.
Also, when you begin something you will propably fail at, start out with small versions of the object and increase the size until you reach what you wanted. Small objects don't need much detail and you allow yourself to concentrate on those lines that are important. Step by step you increase the number of details. That makes the process of imagining all that detailed geometry with it's shadows and reflections easier.
* That's just the strategy I use. I don't claim that it's any good.
Vain
Use help-geometry. A car should e.g. stand in a very lightly drawn box, so you see a 3 dimensional space instead of a 2 dimensional piece of paper. Draw some simple geometry around the object you want to draw to remind your brain of the angle you are drawing the object at. For complete pictures with scenery you can also start off outlining the background and simple objects to define the viewpoint before you tackle the more complex geometry.
Vain
Unfortunately the community as a whole propably lacks the education.
We're not talking about taking some pipes, welding them together and bolting the engine from someone's garage to it.
Beside the graphical design all contributors should have at least one or two years of engineering studies under their belt. Everything else is just too much guesswork.
Vain
We're not talking about taking some pipes, welding them together and bolting the engine from someone's garage to it.
Beside the graphical design all contributors should have at least one or two years of engineering studies under their belt. Everything else is just too much guesswork.
Vain
*shrugs*
I'll start giving my opinions:
Wheelbase:Track ratio
The car needs to meet, among others, two requirements: Be light, and have two seats. Thus we have a given width, and can only make it short. The graphical design needs to follow the idea of maximum wheelbase at minimum car lenght.
The vehicle shouldn't be wider than 1.6-1.7 meters, and no longer than 3.5 meters. Height should be a function of seating position, which is determined by the position of the engine and the wheelbase. Something like 1.3 meters should be achievable.
Top Speed or Acceleration
Top speed needs propulsion and low wind resistance, which costs both much time and money. We don't have that.
Road, Road/Track or Track
I said earlier, that if we want to design a racecar we could just join the local FSAE team. My idea is: We design a car that is, in it's concept, basically able to be modified to be a proper roadcar. To prove that point the car needs to meet the requirements of motorsports. It needs to be performant, reliable and efficient in terms of cost to performance.
The general concept is that, in the end, we could give the CAD-files to a manufacturer and all they'd have to do is stick a proper frame and a proper interior into it and that should be enough to make it a road-legal series car.
Engine position - Front, Rear, Mid? Longitudinal or Transverse?
If it is supposed to be reasonably quick I'd go for a longitudinal 4 cylinder mid-engine.
Gearbox position
If it's a mid-engined vehicle and the rear wheels are driven there isn't much space between the crankshaft and the rear axis to choose from. :smile:
Gear ratios - quick change box, or pre-selected gears from a road car?
Gear ratios are a function of wind resistance, power and aimed top speed. I'll add a paragraph about taking already existing parts.
Gearbox type - h-pattern, sequential...
To find financial support the vehicle needs to be 'sensible'. An H-pattern gearbox would meet that requirement.
I add the following point: Engine capacity - forced induction or NA?
I'd either go for a 2 litre NA or a ~1.5 litre turbocharged engine.
Already existing parts versus self-made parts:
This project has an excessive likelyhood of stalling during it's development.
Thus I'd suggest the following design-procedure:
1. Requirements and engineering design
This is basically the questionnaire above. Of course it needs to get a lot longer in the future before we can regard this as finished.
2. Graphical design
How is it supposed to look? Which dimensions does the car have?
* After this point the car could go into LFS. The first success of the project.
3. Alpha-Prototype development
To make the transition from design to physical parts easier we should attempt to build a proof-of-oncept vehicle. That means we build a chassis that can accomodate standard-parts that are already available. This is a quick and easy solution to make the car become reality very quickly. We can already build a driveable vehicle without having developed our own engine. It proves that we can actually produce a vehicle.
The Alpha is built with the financial support from a university and perhaps possible sponsors (f.e., approach BMW for the engine or suspension parts).
4. Beta-Pototype development
We have proven that we can develop a vehicle and we have experience and a 'known issues'-list from the Alpha. We can now make the transition from bought parts to self developed parts. At this point support from univerities should be easy to achieve, because we hold something in our hands other than a ppt-file.
The support from universities is important, because that way we can reach engineering-manpower and financial support to tackle the more difficult things that require advanced production techniques.
5. Finished vehicle
:rally_dri
Legal issues:
Nothing may be contributed to the project until the project has officially started. To join the project every member agrees that every contriution is considered equal among the contributors. Everyone agrees to never claim to own more of the project because he has contributed more. This is to prevent legal issues and claims in the later stage.
I'll start giving my opinions:
Wheelbase:Track ratio
The car needs to meet, among others, two requirements: Be light, and have two seats. Thus we have a given width, and can only make it short. The graphical design needs to follow the idea of maximum wheelbase at minimum car lenght.
The vehicle shouldn't be wider than 1.6-1.7 meters, and no longer than 3.5 meters. Height should be a function of seating position, which is determined by the position of the engine and the wheelbase. Something like 1.3 meters should be achievable.
Top Speed or Acceleration
Top speed needs propulsion and low wind resistance, which costs both much time and money. We don't have that.
Road, Road/Track or Track
I said earlier, that if we want to design a racecar we could just join the local FSAE team. My idea is: We design a car that is, in it's concept, basically able to be modified to be a proper roadcar. To prove that point the car needs to meet the requirements of motorsports. It needs to be performant, reliable and efficient in terms of cost to performance.
The general concept is that, in the end, we could give the CAD-files to a manufacturer and all they'd have to do is stick a proper frame and a proper interior into it and that should be enough to make it a road-legal series car.
Engine position - Front, Rear, Mid? Longitudinal or Transverse?
If it is supposed to be reasonably quick I'd go for a longitudinal 4 cylinder mid-engine.
Gearbox position
If it's a mid-engined vehicle and the rear wheels are driven there isn't much space between the crankshaft and the rear axis to choose from. :smile:
Gear ratios - quick change box, or pre-selected gears from a road car?
Gear ratios are a function of wind resistance, power and aimed top speed. I'll add a paragraph about taking already existing parts.
Gearbox type - h-pattern, sequential...
To find financial support the vehicle needs to be 'sensible'. An H-pattern gearbox would meet that requirement.
I add the following point: Engine capacity - forced induction or NA?
I'd either go for a 2 litre NA or a ~1.5 litre turbocharged engine.
Already existing parts versus self-made parts:
This project has an excessive likelyhood of stalling during it's development.
Thus I'd suggest the following design-procedure:
1. Requirements and engineering design
This is basically the questionnaire above. Of course it needs to get a lot longer in the future before we can regard this as finished.
2. Graphical design
How is it supposed to look? Which dimensions does the car have?
* After this point the car could go into LFS. The first success of the project.
3. Alpha-Prototype development
To make the transition from design to physical parts easier we should attempt to build a proof-of-oncept vehicle. That means we build a chassis that can accomodate standard-parts that are already available. This is a quick and easy solution to make the car become reality very quickly. We can already build a driveable vehicle without having developed our own engine. It proves that we can actually produce a vehicle.
The Alpha is built with the financial support from a university and perhaps possible sponsors (f.e., approach BMW for the engine or suspension parts).
4. Beta-Pototype development
We have proven that we can develop a vehicle and we have experience and a 'known issues'-list from the Alpha. We can now make the transition from bought parts to self developed parts. At this point support from univerities should be easy to achieve, because we hold something in our hands other than a ppt-file.
The support from universities is important, because that way we can reach engineering-manpower and financial support to tackle the more difficult things that require advanced production techniques.
5. Finished vehicle
:rally_dri
Legal issues:
Nothing may be contributed to the project until the project has officially started. To join the project every member agrees that every contriution is considered equal among the contributors. Everyone agrees to never claim to own more of the project because he has contributed more. This is to prevent legal issues and claims in the later stage.
Last edited by Vain, .
Actually I think the rear of the FZ 50 is absolutely planted. The XRT, LX6 or RAC have a horrible rear end stability in comparison.
The FZ5's only problem is it's pretty huge absolute weight. That's why it feels like a boat. But that's the concept of the car. Huge power, huge weight, small wind resistance.
Vain
The FZ5's only problem is it's pretty huge absolute weight. That's why it feels like a boat. But that's the concept of the car. Huge power, huge weight, small wind resistance.
Vain
I don't think anything beyond ~850 kg is reasonable, because we don't really have access to much other than a tubular frame. That means at best we could produce a midengined stripped closed roof RWD 2-seater (look at the design of the Smart Roadster Coupe via google for an idea of the size). Everything else is out of reach financially because of the necessary propulsion.
Actually I'm in favor of a closed-roof solution because it is closer to reality and as such more likely to find (financial) support. It also sets it apart from an FSAE vehicle. And it would sure be loads of fun to drive.
Vain
Actually I'm in favor of a closed-roof solution because it is closer to reality and as such more likely to find (financial) support. It also sets it apart from an FSAE vehicle. And it would sure be loads of fun to drive.
Vain
Actually it's like that with all cars. There are several ideas for the concept of the vehicle around and one is chosen from them. There are five designs and one is chosen from them.
All cars are a compromise of opinions. And they've almost always been except for the smallest of producers, like Donkervoort.
Making that compromise is one of the tasks engineers are supposed to learn. I was planning to join the local FSAE team next winter. But I could aswell join something like this.
Vain
The only way I could see this becoming reality is on an academic stage.
Which means:
If there are some involved people who like that idea, and additionally study an engineering degree, then get a concept together and create a presentation. The members offer this international concept to their university using said presentation, ask for some support and organise/develop everything from 4-5 universities, working in small teams each, coordinating each other via the net.
Such groups are likely to recieve the necessary funding because of the great educational value in both hard and soft skills.
I'd be willing to get involved with something like that.
Vain
Which means:
If there are some involved people who like that idea, and additionally study an engineering degree, then get a concept together and create a presentation. The members offer this international concept to their university using said presentation, ask for some support and organise/develop everything from 4-5 universities, working in small teams each, coordinating each other via the net.
Such groups are likely to recieve the necessary funding because of the great educational value in both hard and soft skills.
I'd be willing to get involved with something like that.
Vain
If some demo-user wants to drive the S2 cars they'll just use the crack. I mean, google for it and in 10 minutes you're driving the XRR on Westhill. Using a tweakprogram is a lot more complicated. So why not make it full-featured?
Restricting tweaks isn't helping anyone. Neither the licensed users nor the devs.
(And yes, I tried it. I had the download-link for a patch V unlocker after exactly 6 minutes.)
Vain
Could've needed a little bit 3d-perspective, and that "bling"-effect doesn't improve it either. But hey, it's a car! 8/10
Vain
Vain
Yes. LFS can display the current displacement, so it must have stored it somewhere in it's allocated memory.
Though it gets a bit difficult when several instances of the same variable are stored. You won't know which one is the correct one to modify - try and error.
Vain
@Breizh: It's easier to explain with engine capacity: You switch cars in LFS and every time you look around the memory for the value of the new engine capacity, propably as a signed or unsigned integer (a 4 byte number). If you found one that always switches to exactly the engine capacity currently active in LFS you found what you searched for.
With car weight it's a bit more complicated because there's a formula behind it's calculation. The weight is calculated from a base-chassis weight and the additional weight of the engine. You first have to calculate the base-weight for different cars, hope that it's something even, and then look for that value. Directly editing the calculated weight could lead to problems when the value is re-calculated.
You can't search for uneven numbers because you are looking for a specific segment of bits in the memory. If your truncated value is 0.0004 different than LFS's real value you won't find the address. I'm sure some tool could get around that by intelligently guessing which address could be the right one using a deviation-comparison - I never came across such a tool though.
Vain
With car weight it's a bit more complicated because there's a formula behind it's calculation. The weight is calculated from a base-chassis weight and the additional weight of the engine. You first have to calculate the base-weight for different cars, hope that it's something even, and then look for that value. Directly editing the calculated weight could lead to problems when the value is re-calculated.
You can't search for uneven numbers because you are looking for a specific segment of bits in the memory. If your truncated value is 0.0004 different than LFS's real value you won't find the address. I'm sure some tool could get around that by intelligently guessing which address could be the right one using a deviation-comparison - I never came across such a tool though.
Vain
Last edited by Vain, .
Installed and played around with it. Nice effort, but it imposes quite a lot limitations.
There's basically no way to make proper vehicles, because it doesn't allow me to change a lot. I can't set a proper redline, I can't change the weight of the vehicle, I can't influence the height of the COG, I haven't found a way to enable/disable downforce, I have no way to influence the number of gears, and of course I'm restricted to the demo-cars, which in itself also imposes some limitations.
So my 1967 F1-car will have to wait for another day. Sad.
Otherwise thanks for the effort.
Vain
[Edit]
Oh, and play around with the turbo and different engines. The 'simulation' is just totally nuts.
There's basically no way to make proper vehicles, because it doesn't allow me to change a lot. I can't set a proper redline, I can't change the weight of the vehicle, I can't influence the height of the COG, I haven't found a way to enable/disable downforce, I have no way to influence the number of gears, and of course I'm restricted to the demo-cars, which in itself also imposes some limitations.
So my 1967 F1-car will have to wait for another day. Sad.
Otherwise thanks for the effort.
Vain
[Edit]
Oh, and play around with the turbo and different engines. The 'simulation' is just totally nuts.
Last edited by Vain, .
I don't agree with that argumentation.
I got within 1% of the WR of As Gp Reversed in the FZ5 within about 20 minutes, and still I consider it a lot harder than f.e. Westhill/FZ5, where I'm still not below the 1% mark after some 180 laps.
Difficult is easiest described as "How difficult is it to stay consistantly fast?"
On Westhill my laptime-deviation is only caused by fuel consumption. I consistantly get 0.05 to 0.1 quicker each lap with a deviation of 0.2 or fewer. On Aston Gp Rev there is often quite some deviation in my laptimes (measured relatively to the absolute laptime), because I didn't quite hit the ideal line over some blind crest.
That's why South City Town Reversed is so difficult. Lots of blind corners, braking over crest, bumpy turn in zones, it just takes a lot of concentration.
Vain
I got within 1% of the WR of As Gp Reversed in the FZ5 within about 20 minutes, and still I consider it a lot harder than f.e. Westhill/FZ5, where I'm still not below the 1% mark after some 180 laps.
Difficult is easiest described as "How difficult is it to stay consistantly fast?"
On Westhill my laptime-deviation is only caused by fuel consumption. I consistantly get 0.05 to 0.1 quicker each lap with a deviation of 0.2 or fewer. On Aston Gp Rev there is often quite some deviation in my laptimes (measured relatively to the absolute laptime), because I didn't quite hit the ideal line over some blind crest.
That's why South City Town Reversed is so difficult. Lots of blind corners, braking over crest, bumpy turn in zones, it just takes a lot of concentration.
Vain
Has that evil touch to it, but isn't overly impressive. 8.5/10
Vain
Vain
Fern Bay Black Reversed
Kyoto GP Long Reversed (One beauty of a track :smile: )
South City Town Reversed (hint: FZ5
)
Vain
Kyoto GP Long Reversed (One beauty of a track :smile: )
South City Town Reversed (hint: FZ5
)Vain
I don't mind what they are called, I don't use driver aids - eh, screwing aids? Sounds...wrong.
Vain
More LFS-specific:
At least two people will add that light bulbs are rice, and that only stupid drifters use them. Then one drifter makes it to the scene and feels attacked by being called stupid. He adds that light bulps are actually a pretty good invention, which causes the original two to say that it is thus proven that lightbulps are drifter-rice-stuff and thus continue to flame the drifter for enjoying the benefits of lightbulps.
Oh, and of course that one guy that throws flaming bananas around.
Vain
At least two people will add that light bulbs are rice, and that only stupid drifters use them. Then one drifter makes it to the scene and feels attacked by being called stupid. He adds that light bulps are actually a pretty good invention, which causes the original two to say that it is thus proven that lightbulps are drifter-rice-stuff and thus continue to flame the drifter for enjoying the benefits of lightbulps.
Oh, and of course that one guy that throws flaming bananas around.
Vain
I don't know wether I want wet weather...
Whoever can guess the name of the track in the picture gets a cookie.
And yes, there are more than 3 cars in the 15 meters ahead of the driver.
Vain
Whoever can guess the name of the track in the picture gets a cookie.
And yes, there are more than 3 cars in the 15 meters ahead of the driver.
Vain
Last edited by Vain, .
Hello.
You don't need to register to progress. Once you log on the first time the system automatically creates an account for you and begins logging your progress.
From there on just drive well, try to stay clean and well mannered and enjoy the racing.
You can view your license progress and get your own stcc-userbar by entering your LFSW-username here. Your personalized userbar will be visible to the lower right after entering your username. The address should read http://stccu.ukct.net/*YOUR LFSW Name HERE*.gif - e.g. mine is http://stccu.ukct.net/vain.gif.
Vain
You don't need to register to progress. Once you log on the first time the system automatically creates an account for you and begins logging your progress.
From there on just drive well, try to stay clean and well mannered and enjoy the racing.
You can view your license progress and get your own stcc-userbar by entering your LFSW-username here. Your personalized userbar will be visible to the lower right after entering your username. The address should read http://stccu.ukct.net/*YOUR LFSW Name HERE*.gif - e.g. mine is http://stccu.ukct.net/vain.gif.
Vain
I've always been #9. No relation to any birthdates or stuff like that though. Just 9.
Vain
Vain
Last edited by Vain, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG